United States v. Cuddy’s Empirical Analysis
147 F.3d 1111 · 1998
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Tuan Van Tran v. Gary Lindsey Salinas Valley State Prisons (2000), United States Lower Elwha Band of S'Klallams v. Lummi Indian Tribe (2000)
6 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Koon v. United States · United States v. Alexander · United States v. Sherwood · United States v. Miller
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) the first decision was clearly erroneous; 2) an intervening change in the law has occurred; 3) the evidence on remand is substantially different; 4) other changed circumstances exist; or 5) a manifest injustice would otherwise result.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The rule is that the mandate of an appeals court precludes the district court on remand from reconsidering matters which were either expressly or implicitly disposed of upon appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.